Talk:Militarization conspiracy
Necessity/rename Do we really need an article for what's basically just a short fight between two starships? And if we do need an article, is this really a good title? The "battle" (I don't think it really can be considered one) started in space while at warp, continued near the moon and ended in orbit around earth (or on earth, if one prefers). --Cid Highwind (talk) 23:29, May 20, 2013 (UTC) :I'm thinking this could be on just the pages of the two ships involved, unless this term was used in the film(which based on Cid's comment, I assume it was not; haven't seen the film yet) 31dot (talk) 23:36, May 20, 2013 (UTC) ::We have articles for Battle of Maxia and Battle of the Mutara Nebula which were also fights between two ships; I don't see why this is that much different. - Mitchz95 (talk) 23:48, May 20, 2013 (UTC) :The Battle of Maxia was specifically called that (by one party, at least). The Mutara Nebula battle occurred in a single location and involved specific strategic maneuvering. 31dot (talk) 23:50, May 20, 2013 (UTC) ::There was strategy used in this battle as well, though much of it took place inside the respective ships. I don't want to spoil the movie for you, so I won't get into detail, but I think it's an important enough conflict to warrant an article, at least for now. We can include the "beginning" of this battle under Prelude and start the actual "Battle" part when they arrive at Luna. - Mitchz95 (talk) 00:03, May 21, 2013 (UTC) Still, this is a made up and somewhat misleading title. Also, while there's now more content on the article, the majority is just a copy of the films plot which can already be found in other locations and, in my opinion, doesn't need to be duplicated that way. --Cid Highwind (talk) 04:55, May 21, 2013 (UTC) ::True, but one could also say that Battle of Cardassia is just a copy of the plot of . And that one definitely deserves an article. I'm fine with changing this one's name if necessary, but I think it's a historical event that deserves mention here. - Mitchz95 (talk) 13:27, May 21, 2013 (UTC) :::I've suggested this be renamed to "crash of the USS Vengeance", which is most likely what these events will be remembered as in-universe. While we only have a descriptive name for this, instead of a proper one, I think this event warrants a page, since the damage to the city and the (assumed) loss of life resulted in a memorial service. - 20:16, May 24, 2013 (UTC) Yes, that seems to be a better title. --Cid Highwind (talk) 20:49, May 24, 2013 (UTC) ::::To put it politely, I rather dislike that title. --WTRiker (talk) 05:22, May 30, 2013 (UTC) :::::The events of the film may require other articles like Kelvin Memorial Archive bombing, and Ketha Province incident. Or a better name for the events in the film to avoid short articles would be the Augment conspiracy. --Alientraveller (talk) 21:04, May 24, 2013 (UTC) ::::::I would think that Federation historians would see this event as the end point of a conspiracy by Admiral Marcus to start a war with the Klingons that began with the revival of Khan.Throwback (talk) 21:09, May 24, 2013 (UTC) Keep in mind that our in-universe POV is mostly a vehicle to let us write coherent articles. We should not write articles because a "Federation historian" might write those articles - we should write articles that make sense to a real person reading stuff about a TV show. That means that, in my opinion, "Kelvin Memorial Archive bombing" would not be a good article (because there's nearly no information about it), and "Augment conspiracy" wouldn't be a good article (because no one was called an "Augment" in this movie, because no Augments conspired in this movie, because it, even more than the article we have now, would be mostly a retelling ov the whole movie). -- Cid Highwind (talk) 21:42, May 24, 2013 (UTC) ::Oppose the new title. There's a lot more to this incident than the crash of the Vengeance; there'd be far more information under "Prelude" than the crash itself. Whatever we end up calling it has to reflect the conspiracy as a whole. - Mitchz95 (talk) 22:30, May 24, 2013 (UTC) :Support rename. Descriptive title based on the end result is reasonable in this case. 31dot (talk) 01:35, May 25, 2013 (UTC) ::::Support rename. It wasn't so much a battle as a skirmish or conflict. Perhaps rename it to "Skirmish over Luna", "Sol System skirmish" "USS Vengeance" conflict, etc. Or maybe call the whole thing, from the Kelvin Memorial Archive bombing all the way to the Spock-Khan brawl, the "Marcus conspiracy" or "Section 31 conspiracy", a la Khitomer conspiracy. --WTRiker (talk) 05:22, May 30, 2013 (UTC) :::::::Oppose rename. I think the "Battle of Luna" is a good title, I just think this page should only concentrate on the events of the actual battle, that started when the Enterprise was knocked out of warp and ended with the explosion of the 72 torpedoes in the Vengeance cargo bay and with both ships badly damaged. Much of the prelude and aftermath is unnecessary since this page shouldn't be about the whole film, or the whole complex conspiracy plot, the film has a page of its own and the conspiracy can be covered somewhere else like the Section 31 page for example. --Pseudohuman (talk) 16:53, May 30, 2013 (UTC) If the article is rewritten as Pseudohuman suggests we'd be left with approximately 2/3 of the current "The Battle" section - and that single paragraph of text would, too, be only little more than what necessarily already exists on other pages (including but not restricted to the plot summary of , and most likely USS Vengeance, Alexander Marcus and, of course, ). We would be right back at part two of my initial question: why would such a short and duplicated article with an invented title be necessary at all? -- Cid Highwind (talk) 17:29, May 30, 2013 (UTC) :::::::In my opinion we can get an article of this same size if not even longer if we expand the current extremely short and simplified summary of the battle and reduce the rest. The battle portion of the film from when the Enterprise was knocked out of warp to the explosion of the 72 torpedoes was about 22 minutes long and had a lot of twists and turns in it. A lot of material from what write an article about in my opinion. --Pseudohuman (talk) 17:51, May 30, 2013 (UTC) :::::I think the militarization conspiracy would be the best new name. I couldn't remember if that term was used in the film until I checked Khan's quotes. --Alientraveller (talk) 14:17, June 6, 2013 (UTC) :I think that's the best choice so far. 31dot (talk) 14:20, June 6, 2013 (UTC) ::I like it as well. Although there was more to it than militarization - Admiral Marcus wanted to start a war with the Klingons. - Mitchz95 (talk) 15:59, June 6, 2013 (UTC) :::::That's precisely why S31 conspired to militarize Starfleet. That, and Nero's genocide the year before. --Alientraveller (talk) 16:35, June 6, 2013 (UTC) ::But Marcus was part of S31. Why would they want to start a war? There had to be more to the conspiracy than just militarization. - Mitchz95 (talk) 18:13, June 6, 2013 (UTC) :::::::Is there some reason why you cant just expand this segment with info on the conspiracy involving Section 31 and let this article be about the 22 minute long battle between the two ships and all the tactics twists and turns that were involved in it. In my opinion the battle between the two ships was not part of any conspiracy anymore, but just an escalation that happened when all the secret plans that everyone had went to shit. --Pseudohuman (talk) 19:42, June 6, 2013 (UTC) :::::The battle was a result of Marcus trying to cover up the conspiracy by wiping out an already outdated ship, the destruction of which he could blame on the Klingons. Our model should not be the big battle articles covering II and XI, but the Khitomer conspiracy which covers the battle of Khitomer as well as everything else in VI. Furthermore, everyone has expressed issues with the page name: at least "miltarization" has its basis in the film's dialogue, or else we might as well call this "the battle for Starfleet's soul" per a Lindelof interview. --Alientraveller (talk) 20:13, June 6, 2013 (UTC) :::::Well it's been a while, and no one has raised any further points against renaming the page so I'll move it and expand it quite soon. --Alientraveller (talk) 08:43, July 7, 2013 (UTC) With so many different suggestions about title and scope, it would be best if you presented here what you think has been agreed upon before doing any changes. --Cid Highwind (talk) 08:52, July 7, 2013 (UTC) :::::You yourself question the need for the article in its present state: 31dot concurs "militarization conspiracy" is the best description of the film's events: as does Mitchz95: and WTRiker agreed a conspiracy name for appropriate. I've made a suggested expansion at my sandbox. --Alientraveller (talk) 09:27, July 7, 2013 (UTC) :::::::My humble opinion at this point is that there is room for both in MA, "Militarization conspiracy" and the "Battle of Luna". One would be about this battle, and the other would be mostly about the prelude and backstory that led to the final confrontation that was mostly just about cover up at that point. I think that would be a good compromise and then also the Conspiracy article would not become too lenghtly as it would not need to expand too heavily into the events of the battle. --Pseudohuman (talk) 11:02, July 7, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::If not "too lengthy", what's the problem with simply leaving it as part of the Section 31 article? I agree with having the battle page, but not the conspiracy one (at least, not until we know if there's too much info to be contained in the S31 article). --Defiant (talk) 10:49, July 8, 2013 (UTC) :::::::::I think my write-up is too long for S31. Personally I'd agree to compromise but for now I'm neutral because I don't feel everything can be described as a battle, just as I've suggested moving "Battle of Vulcan" to Destruction of Vulcan. --Alientraveller (talk) 16:37, July 8, 2013 (UTC) Part II - The Conclusion! Since everyone seemed to agree that there is a problem with this article, either the name or the scope, I don't think we can just let this lie. I'm still for a rename, and Alientraveller's suggestion seems to be the best option that actually exists right now, since this article or the Section 31 article haven't undergone any major changes since last July. I'm less in favor of just expanding the Section 31 article, since I'm of the opinion that the conspiracy does warrant an article on its own. I'd like to put this one to bed either way though, and as I'm reading it there is a loose consensus for the suggestion as is, so unless the other suggestions materialize and people change their minds, I plan to implement this shortly. - 20:13, April 5, 2015 (UTC) :Aw thanks Archduk3. As I'm hardly an Internet tough guy who wants to force things that means a lot. --Alientraveller (talk) 22:10, April 5, 2015 (UTC) ::I know I'm very late to reply, but support -- Capricorn (talk) 15:36, April 12, 2015 (UTC) :::I am in support of a rename. I don't feel we can arbitrarily call this the "Battle of Luna" when it wasn't mentioned as such. --| TrekFan Open a channel 18:07, April 12, 2015 (UTC) It is done. Further work and/or articles may be required. - 04:38, April 24, 2015 (UTC) Rename (again) The name of this article is unhelpfully vague. Could it be changed to "Starfleet militarization conspiracy"? -- UncertainError (talk) 10:18, July 28, 2016 (UTC)